Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Topic Review (Newest First)

10-24-2006 04:03 PM

Gaspe Salmon

Dear Sun Ztu,

I have been wrong before, I am CERTAIN of this. I will be wrong again, I am also quite CERTAIN of this.

As per the subject that you elude to whereas you suggest that the outfitters here are trying to take over, I am CERTAIN, that this is not the case and can easily defend that position, although I really do not see the point as I would simply be defending those who can defend themselves easily enough. As for me and my past life as an outfitter, you would be hard pressed to find any control conspiracy on my end as I had always scratched for whatever I got and certainly never controlled anything. If you are so CERTAIN about me being wrong, please bring forth your best arguments and proof, and I would certainly be happy to debate that subject with you.

For someone who is still hiding behind their username, it certainly would appear that you have something to hide from.

If I read your homewaters and location correctly, you are my neighbor here in Cascapedia, perhaps you would like to enlighten us all in regards to the private camps that occupy 77% of the total main river waters here on our river. Would you go out on a limb and say that they are trying to control everything?

Again, I am very anxious to find out where you are getting, or, how you are formulating your accusations. Certainly, if you are so sure, you will not mind telling us all how you have come to this conclusion and who you are.

CERTAINLY someone who offers such grandiose accusations should be ready to reveal themeselves.

You can be certain that I will be awaiting your reply,

David

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Ztu

It is one thing to be certain but you can be certain and be wrong

10-23-2006 12:30 PM

blueelver

Dave & Salar-1,

Thanks for the replies. I don't dispute Dave's 1800$ per fish number, my 620$ per salmon is strictly the license cost, which is the part of the expenses I have to report and justify to my wife..

Dave,

Good explanation on how the ZEC's came about. Obviously, the idea I mentioned of selling a portion of the licenses to the highest bidder, would never be accepted if it included a big portion of the season. For instance, auctioning off 50% of the rod-days would require the catch to improve by 100% so the non-auctioned days would catch as much as before, which may be a bit too ambitious for most of your rivers.

Auctioning off 20%, however, does only require a better than 25% increase in the total catch for residents and other "lottery" anglers to catch more fish, even if they would have 20% fewer days to compete for. In my opinion, the current 20% that you say the ZEC's are free to distribute might be just the right ratio, and local outfitters with an established client base should be in the best position to buy those licenses. At the end of the day, the goal of the whole excercise should be fat and happy salmon stocks, more fish for everyone and more business for the locals. I agree with you that earmarking the ZEC's extra income for "salmon only" efforts is the way to go, and I would not be surprised if resident anglers would be more positive towards selling licenses to outfitters, if the extra revenue was more clearly being spent on the salmon itself. Either way, this is for you people up in Quebec to decide, although I feel you have a "moral duty" to listen to ideas from outsiders on how to nurture your priceless resource.....

Salar-1,

Thanks for the info on the unreported catches, this may be just what I need to persuay my better half that the fishing is worth the drive from Massachusetts up to Gaspe.

Ari

10-23-2006 11:13 AM

Sun Ztu

It is one thing to be certain but you can be certain and be wrong

10-23-2006 09:24 AM

Salar-1

Ari
Dave has given you a good description on the how and why a ZEC is operated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each Salmon caught is priceless
Each Salmon even more so
Each day on a river (ANY river ) is priceless
Each day preparing for Salmon fishing is priceless
Each memory of fishing is something that is cherished to all of us ,but especially to those that can no longer get to a river
Each memory of pasted on fishing friends is priceless,especially when their ashes have been spread upon their favourite pool.
So something a tad more that the $ sign does play a factor in Salmon fishing .and a $ sign cannot be placed on a fish's worth !
BTW : Your research that has revealed 1 fish caught /7 days MIGHT be a bit flawed .Ari , SOME fishermen that release fish do NOT advertise their statistics, especially if they fish on open waters . Announce to the ZEC/ river management that you've caught and released 2 or 3 fish on a certain pool and the day after you WILL share that pool with many others .IF that same fisherman has kept his/her fish they have 24 hrs. to report it.
You mentioned the York's stat's . Ari ,let me mention the stat's from a 2006 ,5 day trip .
4 fishermen, 7 fish C&R'd .( believe that only 2 were "reported" to the ZEC office)
So we have a much higher catch rate than is "officially" reported .
Cheers and enjoy our rivers

10-23-2006 08:15 AM

Gaspe Salmon

Sun Ztu,

I went back and checked my post and the word "illusion". It would appear that you actually think that the outfitters are trying to take over. I can not believe that anyone would actually come out and try to make anyone here believe that. Let me simply say this. If your job, your family members job, your friends job or some other person you respect job depended on an outfitter trying to make ends meet was involved, perhaps you would not think this way. Simply put, outfitters, IMHO are simpy trying to survive. When I was an outfitter, I was willing to invest my own time, money and life in a business that kept myself and 8 other people and their families employed. Until you have waded a mile in my waders, or, any of our waders for that matter, you should not be trying to make any of us believe that outfitters are trying to take over. To tell you the truth, if the outfitters had not popped up in this area to PROMOTE WAY BEFORE THE ZEC's ever thought of trying to promote outside of Quebec, there would not be such a demand for fishing and there would be a heck of a lot less jobs now. It is a question of survival, not control.

If you want to talk about control, why don't you shoot that comment to the zec's who in no small part had most of their marketing done in past years by private money from myself, Glenn Bill, Ann and others in this industry. Perhaps you do not like the outfitters for having put some rivers on the Gaspe into clear view of visiting anglers because it cuts into your fishing time. The one or two days you probably fish during the prime time season only. Maybe these anglers, who are about 95% CR anglers are a nuissance to you and some others who live here in Quebec.

Take away the outftitters on the rivers in question and you can be guaranteed about a 30% drop in sales. If you do not believe me, call Ronald at the Bonaventure Zec office and ask him how much money CB and SL spend a year on angling passes for their clients in NON-RESERVED and reserved rod zones. Then you can call Marc Gauthier from the Cascapedia Society and ask the same question about the rod sales in the branches. Follow-up that call to Jean Roy in Gaspe and ask him how many rods MRO and ANN's business buys. Just for fun, call the Grand Riviere Zec and ask them how much money BG has pumped into that Zec. Once you have your facts straight and you have done all of your homework you can come back and tell me that outfitters want to take over. Until then, keep on with the constructive criticism. I, like Pierre Mansea Salar 1 have WAY TOO MUCH TIME ON OUR HANDS and will be happy to respond to you.

In hopes that we will see the caped crusader unmasked soon!

I reamain in control of only my keyboard,

DB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Ztu

David you have been given the hammer and unfortunately you have chosen the wrong nail. there is no illusion.Venture, salmon fishing has nothing to do with war and you are right Quebec does support business that engage in promoting salmon fishing and not self promoting . Read again the books of Balfour Kinnear and Falkas . Salar1 you have too much time on your idle hands.

10-23-2006 08:00 AM

Gaspe Salmon

Hello Ari,

Glad that you are thinking about discovering the beautiful Gaspe Peninsula!

As per your comments, please allow me to try to answer/respond to a couple of your questions/comments.

First of all, the actual value of a salmon caught by a visiting non-resident is about 3x what you stated (1,800$ + per fish), this is a number that was calculated over 5-years ago so it could be different now. Good point, however.

As to your suggestion, or, question as to why the government does not allow bidding on waters, I have this to say. The ZEC system was created to get rid of an old system that was almost exactly like that. Not so long ago, PRE- 1979, most of the rivers in Quebec were controlled, (leases were held) by non-residents and residents, mostly rich individuals and companies who had the rights to fish the rivers here. This meant that Quebec residents had little to no access on their own rivers. Imagine watching people from other countries fish rivers where you live and knowing that the only way you could fish was to poach them. This was the reality until the PQ Parti Quebecois came into power and a man by the name of Guy Chevrette (Pierre help me out if my facts are a bit mixed up) who was minister of the Environment came in with the order from the Qc Prime Minister to DE-CLUB most of the rivers and hunting territories that had been controlled, (leased to) by these outside interests. This is when the ZEC's which stands for (CONTROLLED EXPLOITATION ZONES) came into existence. Of course, it took a bit of time to get all of the Zec's in place, but today they are there. Their mandate is to sell access permits to anglers and insure a fair draw and equal access to all and to provide protection and habitat improvements on the river in order to maintain and/or increase salmon stocks. IN a nutshell that is the story, however, condensed I have made it here. Believe me, it is a lot more complicated than that. Perhaps someone else could assist me in explaining a bit better.

Therefore, you would have a REVOLT here in Quebec if the government sold out to the highest bidder. And BEFORE any of you start to think that this is what is happening now with the outfitters, think again, it is NOT the same thing at all. What I failed to mention is that there exists (and has existed for a very long time) a 20% discretionary "bank of rods" that Zec's are allowed to sell to 1. the highest bidder, 2. use for promotion 3. package together for their own purpose. This 20% is sometimes sold to outfitters, sometimes to individuals, (although usually only a part of that 20% is sold), but most of the time, it goes unsold or untapped. Now then, the government and from what I understand, the FQSA is in favour of rod allocation to outfitters via this 20% rule, which it turns out, is exactly what the outfitters are for as well. So where is the problem you and others might ask? I mean, there exists an avenue that was requested by the Zec's a long time ago so that they could be self sufficient financially a long time ago, and what has been done with the 20% well, not much in most cases. Excuse me if some of you managers who read this take exception, however, I did say "most".

Now then, to put up our rivers for bid would be taking about 100 steps back for our province and the ZEC system. This is my humble opinion. I do feel, however, that if the 20% rule exists, there should be a way to try to save the outfitting/guiding industry here in Quebec by allowing the use of some or all of that 20% to be distributed (after fair evaluation of everyone's needs) so that we are not simply giving away our resource. As of today, we are still one of the only places where you can fish without a guide as a non-resident and I think that is a good and fair thing so far. I do, however, feel that the Potential value of our resource could be increased for the benefit of the SALMON, (remember them??? not much being said about them in this thread thus far) in terms of habitat and restoration if prices were increased for certain people/industries. If you look at it worldwide, we offer CHEAP fishing here in Quebec and that IS A FACT.

My last posts, as with this one and you can count on future one’s will debate and defend this stance. We need to use our resource wisely so that the SALMON will end up benefiting. By the way, in the 20% that has been suggested as an avenue for outfitters to pick up rods, the price for each rod is WAY above the actual price that a resident and non-resident would pay. IMHO this is one of the best avenues for ZEC's to stow away money for the salmon. As a matter of fact I would suggest that each cent over the normal RESIDENT rod rate that is received by the ZEC's should automatically go into a fund for the SALMON ONLY i.e., salmon habitat restoration and improvement ect... Again, this is my opinion only. The money should not go for building camps, buying trucks, making gazebos, cutting trails etc... the Zec's should use the money they get from the other 80% of the rods they sell for those things.

So Ari, you have a good point and one that is readily available as a solution to all this mess here in Quebec at the moment. Sell off 20% to the people who need it to protect jobs in this industry here. Heck the mechanism for this to happen has been around for a very long time. It is time that we recognized that fact and started to use the 20% which in the past, had never been challenged to my knowledge. Ask the Zec's if they want to do away with their 20% and almost all of them will say NO WAY. Problem is, instead of using it for the good of our economy and the region by negotiating rods within it, they have been reticent to agree to sell it to those who need it the most. Those who I mention are indeed the outfitters who by the way, represent about 35-40 direct jobs in two areas. This is just two outfitters, not to mention all of the private guides that exist.

It is a sticky, complex problem, and I DO NOT PRETEND to have ALL OF THE ANSWERS. But after sitting on all sides of the fence over the past 14-years, I think that I may be able to suggest a few painless ways of making everyone happy, at least almost everyone. As with any democracy, you will only make the majority happy, not everyone.

Ari, I hope that you have an EXCELLENT experience here in Quebec and if I can be of any assistance to you, please shoot me a private message and I can fill you in if you have any questions.

Kind regards to you,

David Bishop
Guide

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueelver

Guys,

I ran some numbers on the catch rates and license prices in Gaspe, which I think are rather interesting, and I have a couple of questions for you:

The best data I found was for the York, and after a few assumptions my numbers indicate that non-residents pay about 620 Canadian $ for each salmon caught, and residents about 390 $, assuming the ZEC sells 90 days per season and that the limited sectors catch about 360 fish in an average season during the 2500 or so rod days. These prices are not unreasonable for a pretty river with lots of biggies, but I found the catch rate of 1 salmon per seven rod-days to be low. Do a lot of these licenses go unsold?

My second question is this, has there ever been talk within the ZEC's about selling a portion of the licenses to the highest bidder? I am sure that many of the rivers could see their catches greatly improved, if more money would be invested in habitat improvement, making the pie bigger for us non-millionares even if some percentage of the season would be sold at very high prices.

As a future visitor to Gaspe, who has never been up there, I would welcome your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Ari Eiriksson

10-23-2006 07:22 AM

Gaspe Salmon

Dear Sun Ztu, (whoever you are)

What nail are you refering to? A bit more precision would be appreciated. As to the illusion that I refer to let me explain. The "illusions" that are popping up are sometimes just that. One person says something, people take it as the truth, when it is really an illusion. That is what I meant/mean. If you have something constructive to add, debate, or challenge, then I suggest that you not hide behind a username with no information on who you are, or, where you are from. It might be that you have some very good ideas to share, then again, you may simply, like many others, be talking out your ass about something YOU THINK you know about. Then again, it would seem that you think that myself and some others who have sat around the Salmon Round table, like my friend Pierre Mansea, who you claim, "has too much time on his IDLE hands". Before making remarks like that, I would suggest that 1. you identify yourself (so that everyone can judge where these opinions are coming from and if they are worth taking seriously) 2. take in a few Zec or other river meetings. 3. Become familiar with the WHOLE debate and issue, meaning go back about 10-years. I have never read any of the books you have mentioned, if they have to do with salmon conservation, then I will glad to read them.

Also, if you have a suggestion as to which sized nail I should hammer next, I would gladly welcome your suggestion. In anticipation of your public reply or your private message, I remain convinced that with a bit of comprehension and some increased understanding that this is an INDUSTRY and that we need to make it work for OUR region,

David you have been given the hammer and unfortunately you have chosen the wrong nail. there is no illusion.Venture, salmon fishing has nothing to do with war and you are right Quebec does support business that engage in promoting salmon fishing and not self promoting . Read again the books of Balfour Kinnear and Falkas . Salar1 you have too much time on your idle hands.

10-22-2006 05:01 PM

blueelver

Guys,

I ran some numbers on the catch rates and license prices in Gaspe, which I think are rather interesting, and I have a couple of questions for you:

The best data I found was for the York, and after a few assumptions my numbers indicate that non-residents pay about 620 Canadian $ for each salmon caught, and residents about 390 $, assuming the ZEC sells 90 days per season and that the limited sectors catch about 360 fish in an average season during the 2500 or so rod days. These prices are not unreasonable for a pretty river with lots of biggies, but I found the catch rate of 1 salmon per seven rod-days to be low. Do a lot of these licenses go unsold?

My second question is this, has there ever been talk within the ZEC's about selling a portion of the licenses to the highest bidder? I am sure that many of the rivers could see their catches greatly improved, if more money would be invested in habitat improvement, making the pie bigger for us non-millionares even if some percentage of the season would be sold at very high prices.

As a future visitor to Gaspe, who has never been up there, I would welcome your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Ari Eiriksson

10-22-2006 09:48 AM

Salar-1

Dave
I'll agree with your post .However ,IF there's thousands of days with no anglers , I ask myself then there's NO need" the extra rods ?
If and IF a problem exists of access to reserved sectors,and I know a s--tload of lurkers read these posts(some, as a pile of emails attest , and some the email mention not posting because English is their 2nd language) So I know someone might bring this up at a Table du Saumon" May I suggest that 1 day /week on one sector per river be allotted any enterprise providing a outfitter/guiding service on one reserved sector per river that would normally be allotted in the Nov01 draw. Say, 2 rods max per "enterprise" .Outfitter /guide/guiding service could provide one guide/client. if that one sector has 6 rods then thered' be room for a minimum of 3 Salmon fishing enterprises .IMHO ,there'd be a ton of water to be divided up . IF any water has NOT been taken by the Nov01 draw the river managers could state that these wwould be now available .IF any enterprise cannot use his/her rod allottment ,he /she would announce by the post Nov 01 call in's that these rods would be available .
One previso that I would INSIST upon would be that these rods WILL be given to paying clients and not be used by employees/owners/promotional purposes/industry "freebees".
Cheers

10-21-2006 10:39 PM

Sun Ztu

David you have been given the hammer and unfortunately you have chosen the wrong nail. there is no illusion.Venture, salmon fishing has nothing to do with war and you are right Quebec does support business that engage in promoting salmon fishing and not self promoting . Read again the books of Balfour Kinnear and Falkas . Salar1 you have too much time on your idle hands.

10-21-2006 09:02 AM

Venture

I think David hits it accurately and cuts through most of the BS by not being able to clearly define "fairness". I believe that the term "fairness" is a manmade word that means nothing. If there is some "fairness" in the world, or in our lives, I would love someone to let me know. Is their fairness in Africa, the Middle East, the United States or Canada? Was their fairness throughout the ages in all the history of war and the misery it created. Is their fairness in the economy, or in business? Have you been treated fairly in your life? The word fairness is usually used to define something that always ends up to someone's benifit. Is that fair?

Objectively looking at this debate as a non-resident, and one who does participate in the draw, I would like to say this. It is most important that the provence support any business or industry that actively engages in promoting salmon fishing, and supporting the local economy. It not only is important for the economy of the area, it is also will protect the resource, as it is to their great advantage to preserve the species and their business. That is a no brainer. The active fishing lodges must get enough water for them to flourish.

Then you've got the "local" residents, who love to fish, and live in the communities surrounding "their" rivers. These "local" residents should get priority. They deserve it because this is really their river, as much as it is the outfitters. So they should lets say be "offered" up to 25% of the quotas after the outfitter's. A "local resident" can easily be defined by a zip code, or township. We do it here in the States all the time. I am sure you do in in Canada to. I have special "resident" parking privilages in my area over "non residents" as it is defined by township or a combined group of zip codes not states or countries.

What I don't nessassarily believe in is the disproportionate quotas for "non resident" to "resident" ratios. I see it as a flaw in what defines a resident and non resident AS IT RELATES to the river and the salmon. This is where I see the term "fairness" being used to substantiate and rationalize each group's "desire to control".

There are folks coming from Montreal, Maine, New Brunswick, Toronto, and New York just to mention a few places. ALL these folks rarely support the local economy of the region unless they are there fishing. All come seasonally. Hey, the guy from Maine may live closer to the area than the guy from Montreal. Whats the logic here? Why should the guy in Montreal think he should have priority over the guy from NY? What was his contribution to the region when not on the river? The cost of the non resident license and permit makes up for not contributing to "Quebec resident" income taxes that MAY be directed to the fishery of Altlantic Salmon.

And lastly, to just complete the circle, should the "resident" from Montreal have the same priority as the resident living in the township of Gaspe or the immediate surrounding townships? Again, these are the folks living there year round, through the hardship of winter, all the while supporting the local economy. They in fact ARE the local economy. As I said, this local resident living in Gaspe logically has more rights to that river than anyone else after the outfitter's needs are satisfied. But because the residents of the province far out-number non province residents and local residents, the term "fairness" is used manupulitively to insure they have better control. I like my logic better. I think it should be 25/25/50.

Howie

10-20-2006 05:29 PM

Manitou

NORTH SHORE RIVERS

Bill

I am wondering what rivers are you talking about that have dams that are located on the north shore that have depleated the salmon ressources

Can you name some please ? being a North Shore resident it would be interesting to know what your talking about.

How much time have you spent on the North Shore to make such a statement

Here is the list hope you can list to me the ones that have dams that remove access to salmon

There are dams on North Shore rivers but thankfully none on the Gaspe rivers. The St. John in NB is a shadow of what it was historically because of dams and habitat degradation

North Shore Rivers are Plentiful and offer some great salmon fishing without the crowds in your neck of the woods

Jocelin

10-20-2006 12:42 PM

Gaspe Salmon

Hi Ann!

I know you do your homework... I did not mean to offend anyone, as a matter of fact, I am not sure what you are refering to. All I am saying is that things are not always as they seem, or, as they appear to be when we write things on the net. Now that the agreement in principal is online, everyone can see what the stakes are. IMHO there is not much that is being taken away from anyone, as I see it, about 55-60% of the waters that have tentatively negotiated are on the ST-JEAN and not in the prime sectors of the York. THEN AGAIN, I am NOT THE expert on those rivers, sure I know them, but would never pretend to know as much as you, Bill and others about what sort of effect this will have on access to the rivers and certain beats.

My simple point that I would like to make is the following. If we want the salmon reasource to be just that, a REASOURCE for OUR REGION and OUR WORKERS, we need to use it intelligently. In my world, there would be room for RESIDENTS within a 75/25 framework, some water offered to outfitters, guides with businesses, having a set clientele, native rods, and public draw access. If you look at it from what the reality is and has been, outfitters (which I am no longer) have businesses, just like guide operations (who are also very vital to employment for our area) and need to have some access to waters so that they can continue to attract guests, which in turn will continue to provide jobs to our area.

The sticking point is two-fold, first, the illusion that has been created is that outfitters are trying to take over. This is simply foolishnes. If everyone would just look at what attempts have been made to create a fair system so that OUR REGION could continue to exist, i.e. jobs, then I think most people would understand a bit more. Ann, you must be aware of all of the layoffs in the forestry industry here. Now that we have lost hundreds of jobs what other resource do we have to survive on? You live off of fishing, as do your employees, my old employees, Glenn's, Bill's and others in the industry. Should all of US come second and third to anglers who come during the prime time only, who kill the resource, who come only when the fishing is good, or, from time to time? IMHO the answer is NO. If people like you, Bill, Glenn, and others are willing to invest THEIR money and their lives along with THEIR employees, it is their responsibility to fight for a place, albeit small compared to the GRAND scheme of things, in order to operate.

I think that most non-residents should consider themselves lucky to be able to come to this area and fish on their own, in N.B there is mandatory guiding and outfitters. Residents have lots of rivers to fish on throughout the Gaspesie and lower N. Shore including the N. Shore. I can understand that some may feel as if special deals are being made, however, I am SURE that the vast majority, not just the vocal minority, is in favour OF SOME SORT, that we properly use our reasource for the GOOD of our economy in parrell with the good of our recreation time. After all, for most anglers it is a sport, not a means of putting bread on the table.

My REAL POINT in all of this is simple. We must all stop fighting about who will manage the reasource. WE neen to collectively put our heads together, look at the FACTS, and come up with a solution to how to CONSERVE the SALMON. If we do not, we will no longer be fighting about managing empty rivers. Unfortunately, there are people that only see black and white. Salmon are Silver, somewhere in between, maybe we would do well to consider them FIRST, whilst we try to figure out who has the RIGHT to fish for them.

Again, let me make myself perfectly clear about MY POSITION, and I too have done a lot of homework and have sat at many meetings about this issue. People have to stop trying to CONTROL, this goes for the outfitters and the FGRSQ both. The disinformation, or rather, the lack of concrete information on what this reasource means to our area and our local economy has been somehow lost in this debate. It is a simple fact of life that salmon are a reasource and it is high time that we recognize this and get on with fairly alloting part of it so that we can insure our own futures as guides, cooks, shoreboys, drivers, booking agents, outfitters, etc... THERE IS PLENTY of water to fish and lots of salmon to fish over. However, when you get a poor year like last year, there are no anglers. So why is everyone bitching about accessibility when there are thousands of days available to fish but no anglers fishing??? Answer that question and you get a gold star!

Ann, I have the utmost respect for your knowledge of your area and your passion for the sport. You are truly a good steward and mouthpiece for this area and for the salmon. I find it quite unfortunate that this debate has divided some of us who, after all, are all working for the same thing. Fair accessibility to our reasource. The word FAIR will always have different meanings to different groups and individuals. That is a simple fact of life.

I can tell you that there is simply too much disinformation as to what is really at stake here and it is very sad that things have gone this way. I got out because I was finding myself spending too much time defending certain points and not enough time defending the salmon. Today, my number 1 priority is to talk salmon fishing and conservation. That is all that really counts. Like I said, a couple more poor years of fishing and there will be no problem for anglers to get on the rivers, who will want to fish over rocks? It is high time that everyone put a bit of water in their wine and settle this once and for all. If not, non-residents and residents from away will simply give up on us and we will all be out of jobs.

Ann, I wish you the best, as always and hope to hear from you sometime in the near future.

Screaming reel and frowning rod to you,

Davd Bishop

Guide

10-20-2006 07:25 AM

Green Ghost

ZEC AGREEMENTS

I found the details on the ZEC Gaspe Site, Just go to Francais instead of english and the PDF appears.

10-19-2006 03:18 PM

Green Ghost

ZEC AGREEMENTS

What appears on the web site is the same that appeard in my letter I received except now it says the results of the special meeting would be put on the web site as of October 15th. Today is already October 19th and I saw nothing new on the web site. Can you enlighten us would be participants? What are the changes?

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.